Kate and Gerry McCann accepted damages of £550,000 and a high court apology from Express Newspapers over "utterly false and defamatory" stories published about the disappearance of their daughter in 2007. The letter argues that newspaper corporations with big legal departments will be able to intimidate victims of false stories because they would face millions of pounds in costs if they lose.

So obviously they want the system to continue.

But now consider their position in McC -v- TB.In this case they are in the position of a corporation with a big legal department and unlimited funds, and so are doing to TB exactly what they complained about when it happened to them.

Dont forget their fund is low, and they still have a few cases to fight and to pay. So in this change of events situation, the no win no fee is better for them. The mccanns are selfish people - and everything they do is for self serving and selfish reason.

It would be interesting if it comes a day when no lawyer in the land would represent them because they run out of money. That is why they continue to promote kate's bewk as far as Norway and Sweden.

Dear David Cameron: Full text of the open letter on legal aid bill The Guardian

'Parliament on the cusp of passing a law that will grossly restrict access to justice for ordinary people in privacy and libel cases'

Monday 26 March 2012

Dear Prime Minister

The legal aid sentencing and punishment of offenders bill will have its third and final reading on Tuesday in the House of Lords. Parliament is therefore on the cusp of passing a law that will grossly restrict access to justice for ordinary people in privacy and libel cases, without even any saving to the public purse. We strongly object to the passing of this unjust measure and urge you to amend it before it is too late.

Of course we are the first to recognise that legal costs in many cases are too high and also that some reforms are justified, but the bill includes changes to conditional fee ("no-win, no-fee") agreements and to after-the-event ("no-win, no-premium") insurance schemes which will effectively make them non-viable in libel and privacy cases, where financial damages to a successful claimant are far too small to cover these costs as the bill currently proposes they should. So only the rich could take on a big newspaper group. A successful libel defendant obviously does not get any damages so these reforms will prevent all but the rich from being able to defend their right to free speech against wealthy or corporate libel claimants. Although the aim of reducing costs is very laudable, the position of lower and middle income claimants and defendants in these types of cases has simply been ignored.

Even if a lawyer will take a high-profile case without a "success fee" that compensates for the risk of losing some cases, or even does the case pro-bono, there is still the enormous risk to defendants and claimants that if they lose, they will have to pay the other side's costs. A person of ordinary means in that position basically has the choice of living with injustice or risk losing their home.

Lord Justice Jackson recognised this problem when he proposed an alternative to insurance in his review but the government – without explanation – has not accepted his recommendations in these cases.

In practice this means that in future ordinary defendants, like Peter Wilmshurst, Hardeep Singh and Heather Brooke will also be unable to get support for legal action taken against them, often by large institutions with deep pockets trying to silence them. That would be bad news for science and medicine, for free religious debate and for transparency in the public interest. And victims of the tabloid press like Christopher Jefferies, Bob and Sally Dowler, Kate and Gerry McCann and Robert Murat will not be able to take legal action against the tabloids for hacking into their phones, for false accusations and for gross misrepresentation. Newspaper corporations with big legal departments and their own insurance would scare people off by the prospect of facing a million pounds worth of costs if they lose. This is obviously both wrong and unfair to the ordinary citizen with a good case.

The bill simply fails to consider people like us. Unless a change is made on Tuesday, the government will have succeeded only in uniting both claimants and defendants from modest backgrounds – together with their supporters – against the government and much of the good will generated by the setting up of the Leveson inquiry and promising a libel reform bill will be lost.

We urge you to take action now to amend the legal aid, sentencing and punishment of offenders bill to specifically remove libel and privacy cases, or you will stand accused of being unfair to ordinary people and giving yet more power to large media corporations and corporate libel bullies.

candyfloss wrote:Dear David Cameron: Full text of the open letter on legal aid bill The Guardian

'Parliament on the cusp of passing a law that will grossly restrict access to justice for ordinary people in privacy and libel cases'

Monday 26 March 2012

Dear Prime Minister

The legal aid sentencing and punishment of offenders bill will have its third and final reading on Tuesday in the House of Lords. Parliament is therefore on the cusp of passing a law that will grossly restrict access to justice for ordinary people in privacy and libel cases, without even any saving to the public purse. We strongly object to the passing of this unjust measure and urge you to amend it before it is too late.

Of course we are the first to recognise that legal costs in many cases are too high and also that some reforms are justified, but the bill includes changes to conditional fee ("no-win, no-fee") agreements and to after-the-event ("no-win, no-premium") insurance schemes which will effectively make them non-viable in libel and privacy cases, where financial damages to a successful claimant are far too small to cover these costs as the bill currently proposes they should. So only the rich could take on a big newspaper group. A successful libel defendant obviously does not get any damages so these reforms will prevent all but the rich from being able to defend their right to free speech against wealthy or corporate libel claimants. Although the aim of reducing costs is very laudable, the position of lower and middle income claimants and defendants in these types of cases has simply been ignored.

Even if a lawyer will take a high-profile case without a "success fee" that compensates for the risk of losing some cases, or even does the case pro-bono, there is still the enormous risk to defendants and claimants that if they lose, they will have to pay the other side's costs. A person of ordinary means in that position basically has the choice of living with injustice or risk losing their home.

Lord Justice Jackson recognised this problem when he proposed an alternative to insurance in his review but the government – without explanation – has not accepted his recommendations in these cases.

In practice this means that in future ordinary defendants, like Peter Wilmshurst, Hardeep Singh and Heather Brooke will also be unable to get support for legal action taken against them, often by large institutions with deep pockets trying to silence them. That would be bad news for science and medicine, for free religious debate and for transparency in the public interest. And victims of the tabloid press like Christopher Jefferies, Bob and Sally Dowler, Kate and Gerry McCann and Robert Murat will not be able to take legal action against the tabloids for hacking into their phones, for false accusations and for gross misrepresentation. Newspaper corporations with big legal departments and their own insurance would scare people off by the prospect of facing a million pounds worth of costs if they lose. This is obviously both wrong and unfair to the ordinary citizen with a good case.

The bill simply fails to consider people like us. Unless a change is made on Tuesday, the government will have succeeded only in uniting both claimants and defendants from modest backgrounds – together with their supporters – against the government and much of the good will generated by the setting up of the Leveson inquiry and promising a libel reform bill will be lost.

We urge you to take action now to amend the legal aid, sentencing and punishment of offenders bill to specifically remove libel and privacy cases, or you will stand accused of being unfair to ordinary people and giving yet more power to large media corporations and corporate libel bullies.

In view of recent events, why did these good people, instead of taking a typewriter and publish a letter to the PM, not simply throw some money together to buy a seat near the man at his next self-cooked breakfast/lunch/dinner event? Premier league perhaps? Sure to do the trick, apparently.

I wonder if he is planning to sue the McCann couple for defamation. Kate was very keen on his being the "abductor" from the very start despite no evidence of this of course.

Will those (like Tony Bennett) who make allegations against people (and can back them up using evidence) also receive no win no fee agreements or legal aid so they can hire the MOST EXPENSIVE UK lawyers in their defense. Sadly no chance

____________________Kate McCann "I know that what happened is not due to the fact of us leaving the children asleep. I know it happened under other circumstances"

I'm sure it is this Robert Murat. He got a large payout back in July 2008 from the Newspapers, he was awarded costs as well as the £600,000 settlement.

"Using conditional fee agreements we pursued these 11 national newspapers for numerous articles which carried false and defamatory claims about Robert and his family. The record settlement, in the sum of £600,000 in damages for Robert Murat will help him and is family rebuild their lives."

it's odd to see the mccanns name as if they were hapless and harmless down and out village victims needing legal aids against big bully corporations or rich powerful oppressive individuals when they known to bully people with the money they amassed.

If they are worried about the financial disparity in libel cases they should have empathy for those less fortunate than them. But, the mccanns will have it their ways regardless.

Bloody hell, I have heard it all.

It's just so strange to see mccanns and murat names listed on the same page as if they were in touch and have a shared goal. Did they know about each other's signature? Were they in communication ?

When the campaign to oppose the legal reforms started last year, the names of Robert Murat and Christopher Jefferies were already linked to the campaign. It is only NOW the McCanns have decided to join in- as noted by the Guardian- and hijack it. The obvious question is why now?

@ShuBob wrote:When the campaign to oppose the legal reforms started last year, the names of Robert Murat and Christopher Jefferies were already linked to the campaign. It is only NOW the McCanns have decided to join in- as noted by the Guardian- and hijack it. The obvious question is why now?

Maybe because they are now on a contingency fee for CR. We do remember GM sporting a CR necktag to some official gathering, don't we?

Would you subscribe to a campaign supported by the man you consider to have abducted and abused your three year old daughter?Would you join your name to his?

Oh?

Why not, pray? Is it, because you know he had nothing to do with her?

But how come you are so sure about that, as your four best friends have more or less identified him as a possible abductor?And still you do not shrink of joining him in public and putting your name next to his for all to see?

Could it be -farfetched, I know, I know- that you know he had nothing to do with it, as IT simply did not happen?

But still, what a monumentally wrong step to link your name to his at all! What utter lack of judgement and common decency. He may be as guiltless, as free from sin as driven snow. I grant you that. But do you not understand that you have just cut away the grass from beneath these four best friends feet?

Not many on this forum would do as the McCs did here. Not even for money.

I wonder if he is planning to sue the McCann couple for defamation. Kate was very keen on his being the "abductor" from the very start despite no evidence of this of course.

Will those (like Tony Bennett) who make allegations against people (and can back them up using evidence) also receive no win no fee agreements or legal aid so they can hire the MOST EXPENSIVE UK lawyers in their defense. Sadly no chance

Didn't K McCann say about Murat that "she wanted to kill him" when he was being interviewed about Madeleine's disappearance. I haven't read her "book of fairytales" so it may be mentioned in that, but surely that would be defamation on Murat's character, especially if it's in print.

p. 276 "I would lie in bed, hating the person who had done this to us; the person who had taken away our little girl and terrified her; the person who had caused these additional problems for me and the man I loved. I hated him. I wanted to kill him. I wanted to inflict the maximum pain possible on him for heaping all this misery on my family. I was angry and bitter and I wanted it all to go away. I wanted my old life back."Not specifically about Murat.But did she not also say she prayed for the person who had done it ?

@PeterMac wrote:p. 276 "I would lie in bed, hating the person who had done this to us; the person who had taken away our little girl and terrified her; the person who had caused these additional problems for me and the man I loved. I hated him. I wanted to kill him. I wanted to inflict the maximum pain possible on him for heaping all this misery on my family. I was angry and bitter and I wanted it all to go away. I wanted my old life back."Not specifically about Murat.But did she not also say she prayed for the person who had done it ?

In her diary published in CdM, she said she wanted to kill Murat specifically. I suspect she added that bit above into her account of the truth book by way of trying to explain why she wanted to kill him.

What Kate has failed to explain is what evidence she had to believe Murat was more likely a suspect than, say, Oldfield and O'Brien who had access to Maddie that night and were away from the dinner table for long periods of time.

@PeterMac wrote:p. 276 "I would lie in bed, hating the person who had done this to us; the person who had taken away our little girl and terrified her; the person who had caused these additional problems for me and the man I loved. I hated him. I wanted to kill him. I wanted to inflict the maximum pain possible on him for heaping all this misery on my family. I was angry and bitter and I wanted it all to go away. I wanted my old life back."Not specifically about Murat.But did she not also say she prayed for the person who had done it ?

In her diary published in CdM, she said she wanted to kill Murat specifically. I suspect she added that bit above into her account of the truth book by way of trying to explain why she wanted to kill him.

Thanks ShuBob. I knew I'd seen it somewhere and that I hadn't dreamt it.

@PeterMac wrote:p. 276 "I would lie in bed, hating the person who had done this to us; the person who had taken away our little girl and terrified her; the person who had caused these additional problems for me and the man I loved. I hated him. I wanted to kill him. I wanted to inflict the maximum pain possible on him for heaping all this misery on my family. I was angry and bitter and I wanted it all to go away. I wanted my old life back."Not specifically about Murat.But did she not also say she prayed for the person who had done it ?

In her diary published in CdM, she said she wanted to kill Murat specifically. I suspect she added that bit above into her account of the truth book by way of trying to explain why she wanted to kill him.

Thanks ShuBob. I knew I'd seen it somewhere and that I hadn't dreamt it.

What is she saying: "Additional problems" "for me and the man I loved"?

As in: added to all our other existing problems? Being which, exactly?

Portia. Good point, whatever can it mean.And to add that Madeleine was being 'terrified" also makes no sense. She was allegedly asleep or unconscious at the time of the alleged abduction, and the parents insist she has come to no harm.(Apparently being denied access to your own parents and siblings from the age of 4 to the age of 8 does not count as harm !)Like so much, it makes no sense. But the book was proof-read and passed by everyone, so it must be correct, and very truthful.

Eddie and Keela alerted to items and places concerned with the McCanns - and importantly to no other items or places.

According to Eddie and Keela, the body of Madeleine McCann lay lifeless behind the sofa in Apartment 5a, clinging to the only thing from which she could derive any comfort; a soft toy called 'Cuddle cat'.

Kate's book 'madeleine', Page 219: "Did they really believe that a dog could smell the 'odour of death' three months later from a body that had been so swiftly removed?"

After forensic analysis of the 'Last Photo' there is little doubt now that the pool photo CANNOT POSSIBLY have been taken on the Thursday 3rd May, but most likely on the Sunday 29th April. So, where was Madeleine at lunchtime on Thursday?

John McCann:"This was terrible for them, Kate dressed Amelie in her sister's pyjamas and the baby said: "Maddy's jammies, where is Maddy?"Martin Roberts:"If Madeleine's pyjamas had not, in fact, been abducted then neither had Madeleine McCann."Dr Martin Roberts: A Nightwear Job

Death Toll in McCann Case

Gerry McCann called for an example to be made of 'trolls'. SKY reporter Martin Brunt doorstepped Brenda Leyland on 2 October 2014 after a 'Dossier' was handed in to Police by McCann supporters. She was then found dead in a Leicester hotel room the next day. Brenda paid the price.

Colin Shalke died suddenly in mysterious circumstances with a significant amount of morphine in his system. At the Inquest the coroner said there was no evidence as to how he had come to take morphine, and no needle mark was found.

Ex-Met DCI Andy Redwood had a "revelation moment" on BBC1's Crimewatch on 14th October 2013 when he announced that Operation Grange had eliminated the Tanner sighting - which opened up the 'window' of opportunity' from 3 mins to 45 mins, in accordance with their remit, to allow the staged abduction to happen.

Dr Gonçalo Amaral, retired PJ Coordinator: "The English can always present the conclusions to which they themselves arrived in 2007. Because they know, they have the evidence of what happened, they don't need to investigate anything. When MI5 opens their files, then we will know the truth."

Tracey Kandohla: "A McCann pal told The Sun Online: "Some of the savings have been siphoned off from the Find Maddie Fund into a fixed asset account, which financial experts have advised them to do. It can be used for purchases like buying a house or building equipment."

The McCanns, Operation Grange and the BBC are all working towards one goal - to make us keep looking at what happened (or didn't happen) on 3rd May, instead of looking at what happened days earlier. There is NO evidence of an abduction. Smithman is ALL they have got. Without that, they are sunk. No wonder Operation Grange clings on to Smithman...